RE: Quality of Oracle MetaLink Notes

Don't they already have a function to rate the answer?  A lot of boards
have a "star" or "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" rating system.  If you can
rate the quality of the support analysts answer that might help Oracle
management rate their support analysts.
 
Donald Freeman
Database Administrator II
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Health
Bureau of Information Technology
2150 Herr Street
Harrisburg, PA 17103
dofreeman@xxxxxxxxxxx
 
 

  _____  

From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gus Spier
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:07 PM
To: robertgfreeman@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: Re: Quality of Oracle MetaLink Notes


Rather than relying on my evaluation of my expertise, how much better if
metalink had a set of "rules" to characterize my previous interactions
with metalink?  The forums on OTN don't seem to have a problem awarding
skill levels to contributors.   Surely,  Oracle can whip up a similar
utility.
 
FWIW,
 
R,
 
Gus

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Robert Freeman
<robertgfreeman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


        I think part of this issue is one of language/culture with
respect to the analyst. With a global support organization you are going
to get people who's first language is not English (or even American
English). Thus, their vocabulary will not be quite as wide as a natural
speaker. Additionally this probably makes for more halting and harsh
sounding reporting, when in fact that may not have been the intent.
Finally I find the first level support at Oracle to often be lacking. If
you get a first level analyst making the report (or perhaps they are
trying in vain to paraphrase a development response), they may not have
the knowledge to accurately write what has been reported. Some of the
initial responses I get to SR's are nothing more than the analyst going
through the docs and finding something that I already knew a long time
ago.
        
        I kind of wish Metalink had a set of radio buttons so you could
describe your skill set (expert, advanced, intermediate, beginner) so
they would not do stuff like that. It wastes my time and I sometimes
think that they do it in an effort to just get the SR "answered".....
irrespective of the fact that the answer is about as helpful as fire
ants in Florida.
        
        It think it falls on us, as openers of an SR, to ensure that the
reporting is accurate and correct. Granted, we pay for support and we
can complain until the cows come home about how we should not have to do
this, or do that, but in the end if we follow-up and ensure accuracy and
appropriate grammar, etc we all benefit. That being said, I'll confess
that there are times that I'm just so frustrated with the Analyst after
working an SR that I just don''t want to have anything else to do with
them.
        
        Just my opinion, YMMV...
        
        RF
        
        
        Robert G. Freeman
        Author:
        Oracle Database 11g New Features (Oracle Press)
        Portable DBA: Oracle  (Oracle Press)
        Oracle Database 10g New Features (Oracle Press)
        Oracle9i RMAN Backup and Recovery (Oracle Press)
        Oracle9i New Feature
        Blog: http://robertgfreeman.blogspot.com
<http://robertgfreeman.blogspot.com/>  (Oracle Press)
        
        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Hemant K Chitale <hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:27:51 AM
        Subject: Quality of Oracle MetaLink Notes
        
        
        In the past 1 (or 2?) years, the quality of notes on MetaLink
has
        significantly deteriorated.
        Some are outright misleading (and potentially dangerous to
novice DBAs).
        However, in recent months, I have noticed notes that are also
        arrogant or disrespectful
        to the customer.
        
        One example, one which I did send feedback to Oracle Support is
Note 558846.1.
        
        This is the feedback that I have sent :
        
        I find the language used in Note 558846.1 :
        1. Unclear
        2. Arrogant or dismissive
        
        The Symptoms section states
        "Running a SQL script that returns a great amount of data on
Windows"
        while the Cause section, referring to Bug6867504 states
        "On Windows if you issue highly recursive or very large SQL
        statements you will blow the RDBMS stack"
        
        Is the Bug logged against "a great amount of data"
        OR is it logged against "highly recursive SQL"
        OR is it logged against "very large SQL statement"
        
        What is "a great amount of data" ? 5MB ? 500MB ? xx number of
records
        ? Some figure with respect to a fixed Buffer Size ?
        What is "highly recursive SQL" ? One that makes 10 recursive
calls ?
        One that makes 100 recursive calls ?
        What is "very large SQL statement" ? One that has a text length
of
        5000 characters ? A length of 50000 characters ? A length of
5Mbytes ?
        
        Is the langauge "blow the RDBMS stack" one that is used by a
        Technical Support person talking to a DBA/Developer ?
        What does it mean by "blow .. the stack" ? Should it be "exceed
the
        hardcoded stack size of 1MB " ?
        
        What is related to the stack size ? "a great amount of data" OR
        "highly recursive SQL" OR "very large SQL statement" ?
        WHERE is the problem ?
        
        Is the solution section
        "Note that any SQL statement that has a lot of repeated values
is a
        poor SQL and will probably cause such problems so it's best
never to
        use such bad SQL and try to tune your queries.
        If you have a statement that will not work within the 5 MB stack
that
        you have adjusted, you will never know what the correct results
are anyway."
        a REAL WORLD Solution recommendation ? (and, by the way what is
"a
        lot of repeated values" ? how many is "a lot" ?)
        
        How does your analyst define "poor SQL" and "bad SQL" in the
context
        of this particular Note and Bug ?
        If I have an SQL statement that contains a very long INLIST such
that
        it exceeds a certain size (what size ?) is it "poor SQL" or "bad
SQL" ?
        And what does the analyst mean by "you will never know what the
        correct results are anyway" ? Is THAT the sort of response
        I expect from an RDBMS vendor ?
        
        
        
        
        Hemant K Chitale
        http://hemantoracledba.blogspot.com
<http://hemantoracledba.blogspot.com/> 
        
        
        
        --
        http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
        
        
        
        
        
        --
        http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts: